Pages

Syndicate

Meta

Charles Konia, M.D.
Reprinted from the Journal of Orgonomy, Vol. 43 No. 1
The American College of Orgonomy

When I was growing up in New York City in the 1940s and ‘50s American communists were a small but conspicuous part of the social and political landscape. Depending on whom one associated with they were either revered as true progressives pointing the way to a better future or reviled as the devil incarnate. Then, following the 1960s, they seemed to have vanished into thin air. What happened?

Like every living creature, communists have to adapt to their environment in order to survive; and this is what happened in Western society. Prior to the McCarthy era, partly because communism favorably attracted a wide range of people from the Left including so- called progressives and socialists, communists were able to identify themselves as who they were; that is, in America, card-carrying members of the American Communist Party. During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, however, it was no longer socially or politically acceptable to be identified as a communist and the old-fashioned, card-carrying communist became a thing of the past. Those who held to communist ideas and principles had to find a way to become socially accepted and politically relevant. Starting and continuing through the late 1950s, the early 1960s and beyond, a period of social transformation in the West accompanied by a marked shift to the Left of the political center, communists accomplished this by slipping seamlessly into the liberal mainstream and identifying themselves as liberals. They simply changed the façade they presented to the world. They never in any way relinquished their deep-seated roots in communist ideology, including their covert hatred of America.

Many of these leftist idealogues subsequently established themselves in prominent positions in every area of social influence including politics, journalism, education and the entertainment industry. Through their relentless efforts in advancing their destructive sociopolitical agenda, suspicion, antagonism, and polarization now dominate politics and political discourse in America. To an unwary public, these individuals appear to be no different than true liberals and although they identify themselves as liberals, or as “progressives,” they are actually communists or pseudo-liberals. However, any apparent similarity between the true liberal and the pseudo-liberal is superficial and deceptive.

There can no longer be any doubt about the sociopolitical goals of the pseudo-liberal character. The pseudo-liberal’s unstated political agenda—to institute socialistic measures and subordinate America under the authority of the United Nations—is similar to the stated goals of the bygone Soviet Union of bringing America to her knees and advancing world-wide socialism. To carry out his agenda, the pseudo-liberal relies heavily on his ability to pull the wool over the eyes of, to take in, the masses of true liberals and other honest Americans in order to gain their support.

Failing to recognize the characterologically based differences between various sociopolitical character types, it is simply not possible to make coherent sense of current political events and players. The ideology of the pseudo-liberal/communist or neo-communist is characterized by a rigid, narrow-minded idealism and an unyielding, fanatical political agenda in defiance of all realistic considerations. Although the ideology of the pseudo-liberal and that of the true liberal appear similar, when examined carefully it is clear that the effect of the pseudo-liberal’s actions, regardless of the stated intent, are exactly the opposite of the true liberal. Where the liberal uses intellectual defenses to protect himself from his destructive impulses, the pseudo-liberal uses his intellectual faculties to express his destructive impulses. Where the liberal is pro-American, the pseudo- liberal is anti-American and an internationalist. Where the liberal respects authority, the pseudo-liberal is anti-authoritarian. Where the liberal is egalitarian, the pseudo-liberal is elitist. Where the liberal supports democratic ideals, the pseudo-liberal supports socialistic ideals. Where the liberal is a political idealist, the pseudo-liberal is a political activist.

Currently, there are many examples of true liberal and pseudo- liberal politicians in the social arena. This creates enormous problems. True liberals are unable to see that the pseudo-liberals’ political affiliation with the Democratic Party and their fundamental political beliefs have little if anything in common with their own views. This observation was made many years ago by James Burnham in his book Suicide of the West in the chapter Pas D’ennemi à Gauche (“There is no Enemy to the Left”), which is reprinted in this issue of the Journal. In fact, as noted, the moderate true liberal and the radical pseudo-liberal politician have vastly different political plans about what is best for America despite the fact that they belong to the same Democratic Party. Belonging neither on the pseudo-liberal Left nor on the political Right, the true liberal is caught in the cross-fire between these two ideological forces and is threatened with political extinction.